National and Regional Youth Policies
The concept of national youth policy has become well established in Europe. The European institutions of the Council of Europe and the European Union have become strong advocates for the development of national policies that aim at improving the situation of young people. They are pursuing different mechanisms for encouraging their member states to undertake measures to develop cross-sectoral holistic policies that perceive young people as a resource and which actively involve young people and non-governmental youth organizations in decision making on issues that affect them. During the last ten years, events have taken place which have accelerated the development of national youth policy in Europe and lifted it to a whole new level. First, the Council of Europe, through the 1rst international expert review of the national youth policy in Finland in 1997, established a mechanism for assessing national youth policy in Europe, which rapidly became popular with member states keen for guidance on further developing their youth strategies. By early spring of 2009, international 10 Youth Policy Manual – How to develop a national youth strategy expert reviews of 16 member states were completed,1 and more countries had led a request for an assessment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUJsvrT7p4c
National youth policies throughout Europe are different. They have to be, since they respond to different challenges, cultural specificity and are developed and implemented in countries with vastly different resources at their disposal. But is it nevertheless possible to speak of a “European standard” of youth policy? And is it meaningful to present a common model for how a national youth strategy can be developed in Europe today? This manual suggests that it is possible to respond affirmatively to both of these questions. It discusses the concept of youth policy and youth participation, it explores the policies of the European Union, the Council of Europe and the United Nations system in this field, and suggests a number of elements that must be considered in the process of developing a national youth strategy document. Finally, it proposes a concrete example of how a national youth strategy process can be implemented.
In Europe youth policies at national level are formulated according to the country priorities and realities but often they are also inspired and shaped by the themes and priorities of the European Union and the Council of Europe, which have their own particular missions and mandates.
What is a national youth policy?
A national youth policy is a government’s commitment and practice towards ensuring good living conditions and opportunities for the young population of a country. It can be more or less targeted, weaker or stronger, narrow or wide-ranging. A youth policy is not necessarily articulated in a specific strategy document (although this is certainly preferable!), but can be a set of established policy practices or rooted in a number of different documents, which together determine how a government deals with issues that address young people. It is not a prerequisite of a youth policy (or any other policy, for that matter) to be based on legislation; this will depend a lot on the national context. For a youth policy to be strong and effective, however, it should comply with a number of factors, which will be addressed in this chapter.
There are different ways to categorize what youth policy actually is. This is because youth policy is more than just a list of issues that should be included. It is also about methodology, target
groups, stakeholders, budgets and so on. Howard Williamson, who has been central in the international youth policy review process of the Council of 14 Youth Policy Manual – How to develop a national youth strategy Europe, has argued that there are 1ve components to youth policy, which can be labelled “the five Cs”:
• Coverage (geographical area and social groups that are covered, plus policy domains);
• Capacity (the role and relationship of government and youth NGOs); • Competence (the question of training and quali1cations);
• Co-operation, co-ordination and coherence (hierarchically and horizontally);
• Cost (the 1nancial and human resources required).
Why is a National Youth Policy important?
Some countries may not have one and things may be going well, so why all the fuss about getting one in Guyana? Taking into consideration that such things as the fact Guyana is a developing country, ranked a lower middle income with lots of issues such as, literacy, education, high school dropout rate, unemployment, etc., a national youth policy then becomes strategic in lifting and supporting the young generation, particularly since persons under age 35 years old account for over fifty percent of the population.
It is as simple as this: youth policy = youth development = national development.
Of course, it is never this straight forward and some countries are unique and will naturally have different processes and policies.
The first aspect, Youth Development, was explained by Pittman as “…the ongoing growth process in which all youth are engaged in attempting to (1) meet their basic personal and social needs to be safe, feel cared for, be valued, be useful, and be spiritually grounded, and (2) to build skills and competencies that allow them to function and contribute in their daily lives.”
This definition mentions one of the critical elements of youth development, that is, self discovery and empowerment of each individual.
Adopting and implementing a youth policy is not an easy process, but nevertheless, the policy must be formed in order to truly shed light on the plethora of challenges young people face on a daily basis that hinder the achievement of their maximum growth and the realization of their full potential. The policy and action plan must therefore outline multi sectoral approaches, responsibilities and programmes that can benefit young people and their immediate surroundings.
For instance, during the consultation in Region 1, many of the young people mentioned the need for skills training, reviving the technical vocational centre, investment in sports, among others. This evidence based recommendations then filter into youth programmes for Region 1.
Youth development also fosters participation, advocacy, and representation of the dynamic input of youth, youth organisations and clubs and youth development partners, where recommendations are channelled, and policies are implemented and evaluated.
Further, involving and engaging young people in the governance structure gives a greater understanding of systems and procedures, but most importantly, understanding citizen responsibility, principles, etc.
National development, on the other hands, is an infinite discussion which can maneuver from politics, to economics, culture, society, inter alia. But in the context of youth development, I refer to the World Development Report 2007, which says, “the World Bank suggested that developing countries which invest in better education, healthcare, and job training for their record numbers of young people aged 12-24 could take advantage of their “demographic dividend” to accelerate economic growth and sharply reduce poverty”.
Valuing young people as equal partners in the process of development and the sustenance of democracy is absolutely essential to the preservation of our collective future. Harnessing potential, building and strengthening skills and capabilities, educating and nurturing a population, are all positive signs of socio-economic development in a nation.
National strategies for youth work
The EU Youth Report105 draws on the reports submitted by all Member States on how the EU Youth Strategy has been implemented at national level during the period 2010- 2012. In response to the question of whether each Member State has a National Youth Strategy and/or an Action Plan, or a cross-sectoral strategy specifically referring to youth issues, a majority of countries have put one of these in place, some of which are relatively recent. In fact, according to the national reports submitted in 2011 in the framework of the EU Youth report, only Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Romania and Slovenia responded that they did not have a National Youth Strategy and/or Action Plan, or a cross-sectoral strategy specifically referring to youth issues. The EU report also found that in a substantial number of countries which already had strategies they were reporting on-going processes to develop those strategies, suggesting that youth policy is increasing in importance. In terms of ‘youth work’ specifically, in their analysis of the country reports, the EU report found that several Member States make reference to youth work within their National Youth Strategies, Action Plans or cross-sectoral strategies. During the course of this study, the compiled country reports collected information on youth work policies and strategies to build a picture of the youth work policy and programme framework which complements the information gathered on youth policies in general in the EU Youth Report. We have tried to make a distinction between a youth strategy and a youth work strategy, the former covering a more extensive area encompassing all activities that are targeting young people and concern all aspects of their lives, whereas a specific youth work strategy has a narrower scope, concentrating on one area of youth policy covering youth work specifically. Whereas the EU Youth Report mapped countries which had youth strategies in place, this study concentrated on whether youth work aspects were featured in a specific youth strategy, a more general youth strategy or not at all. In terms of specific youth work strategies, comparison of the country reports show that it is rarely the case that EU countries have a dedicated strategy that is specifically for youth work. However, aspects of youth work are often incorporated into national youth strategies or action plans:
■ Where there is an identifiable youth work strategy at national level;
■ Where aspects of youth work are incorporated into general national youth strategies;
■ Where specific youth work strategies or youth strategies are in development;
■ Where there is no evidence of youth work aspects in any strategy document.
Regional Policies
In the regional development strategy the problem of youth migration is pointed out, stating that more than half of the young people graduating from the school intend to leave their home area, which diminishes the population numbers in small areas and makes the age structure of rural areas ‘problematic’. It also states that the aim of the regional policy is to ensure that all regions would be attractive places to live as well as to do business.
To ensure that these aims are fulfilled, there are several regional programs launched, many backed with the money from European Union’s Development Fund. While the funding involves multiple fields, the most visible are the investments in buildings. Several rural schools have been recently renovated, youth centers been erected in renovated buildings, centers of culture or sporting venues have been built or renovated. To be sure, these developments have an effect of creating an atmosphere of (positive) change and development and make the areas more attractive. However, in the light of demographic changes these investments may remain unfruitful. Though in many places the renovated buildings are huge enough to host the pupils of the biggest urban gymnasiums, the number of kids attending the schools is diminishing rapidly. In addition, the new gymnasium legislation initiated by Ministry of Education presupposes the dividing of primary schools and gymnasiums in the future. It also aims closing down smaller gymnasiums: the idea being that all the remaining gymnasiums offer options of studying different study branches in depth. If we consider the diminishing size of the age group that will soon be in gymnasiums and the proportion of those preferring urban gymnasiums anyway, we can see that in many places closing down gymnasiums in rural areas due to small numbers of pupils is unavoidable. However, often functioning educational institutions are considered prerequisites for preventing the extinction of rural areas as entire families may consider moving away. Thus, often the regional policies that invest into buildings do not consider the larger demographic and migration processes or the aims of educational policies, creating conflicting signals for the rural youth. Enormous freshly renovated school buildings with little or no pupils in them can create a sense of abandonment and senseless investments, undermining the reputation of the authorities.